Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG Sets New Benchmark for Excellence

[wickidwombat]

I picked up this lens a couple months ago. It is on par or perhaps better than my 135l in sharpness, color and contrast. It truly is a phenomenal lens. It makes my canon 50 1.4 look like a joke. The bokeh is superb. I have enjoyed it so much I wrote Sigma asking for a 50 in the same line. This was their response:


Hello Shane,
                The new Art, Sports and Contemporary line are the way of our lenses to come, when and if the 50mm 1.4 is updated it will be in the same vain as the 35mm 1.4.
Yours Truly,
Paul Pizzano
Sigma Corp. of America

Nice!

I hope they do the 85 before the 50 though, while the current 85 is good it could do with a good tweeking from 1.4 to f2
oh and an art series 24-70 f2.8 OS along the same vein... is that too much to ask?

[bolgo]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/03/14/dxomark-investigates-lenses-for-the-nikon-d800

read this before getting hot and bothered about 36MP

[dilbert]

I picked up this lens a couple months ago. It is on par or perhaps better than my 135l in sharpness, color and contrast. It truly is a phenomenal lens. It makes my canon 50 1.4 look like a joke. The bokeh is superb. I have enjoyed it so much I wrote Sigma asking for a 50 in the same line. This was their response:


Hello Shane,
                The new Art, Sports and Contemporary line are the way of our lenses to come, when and if the 50mm 1.4 is updated it will be in the same vain as the 35mm 1.4.
Yours Truly,
Paul Pizzano
Sigma Corp. of America

mmm, nice response!
No commitment but still they have adjusted their goals for their lenses to be of a higher quality which is great to hear!

[CarlTN]

As for $2000+ lenses in this range, if Canon wants to really kill the competition while also delivering good value for money, they should make a fast zoom.  As in an f/2 or f/1.6 or something.  A 24-40 or 35-60 f/1.6...with...image stablization...and...weather sealing capable of sustaining submersion pressure down to 10 feet.  They could make the outer shell out of carbon fiber and titanium with exotic synthetic gaskets for sealing, and the inner frame out of carbon nanotubes.  And while they're at it, make it capable of being sand-blasted for a period of 45 minutes (for those times when you need to shoot a beach volleyball match during a sandstorm or hurricane...or perhaps get some closeups of migratory birds during a volcanic eruption).  I would pay $4000 for one of these, because alas, that's what I need. 

[wickidwombat]

As for $2000+ lenses in this range, if Canon wants to really kill the competition while also delivering good value for money, they should make a fast zoom.  As in an f/2 or f/1.6 or something.  A 24-40 or 35-60 f/1.6...with...image stablization...and...weather sealing capable of sustaining submersion pressure down to 10 feet.  They could make the outer shell out of carbon fiber and titanium with exotic synthetic gaskets for sealing, and the inner frame out of carbon nanotubes.  And while they're at it, make it capable of being sand-blasted for a period of 45 minutes (for those times when you need to shoot a beach volleyball match during a sandstorm or hurricane...or perhaps get some closeups of migratory birds during a volcanic eruption).  I would pay $4000 for one of these, because alas, that's what I need. 

Amen brother!

I would pay alot for a 35-85 f2L IS it would be The wedding / event lens

[CarlTN]

Amen brother!

I would pay alot for a 35-85 f2L IS it would be The wedding / event lens

Without a doubt!  Especially if it was outdoors, in the rain.

Seriously, I wonder if anyone has taken anything other than a 1 series to the rainforest, places like the amazon, or Borneo...or even just central america.

[CANONisOK]

Without a doubt!  Especially if it was outdoors, in the rain.

Seriously, I wonder if anyone has taken anything other than a 1 series to the rainforest, places like the amazon, or Borneo...or even just central america.

Rainforest... Check. Central America... Check.

[CANONisOK]

Canon going to leapfrog the sigma in IQ... how much wishful thinking is this, how much "better" do you think Canon's will be?.... oh, right... the "colors" and "bokeh" will all be $1000 better like all the other L lenses compared to the competition.  And will probably be sharper at F/1.4 than the siggy is at F/2.8 right?

My guess is that it would be marginally better than the Sigma, but certainly not worse. Heck, if it could merely match the Sigma IQ and not have the onion bokeh I'd say that would be a pretty swell lens!

As for the recent trend of L lenses... what, more like the 24-70 F4L or F2.8LII? Because the F4L is trash and costs a fortune.

I hope that's a rhetorical question! But it's a fair one, and to be perfectly honest since picking up the 24-70mm ii I forget that "other" new 24-70 L even exists. With that one exception, I have to go back to the 16-35 ii to find a top-level EF lens that has been even modestly disappointing on my radar in the past half-decade or so. Of course, I can't speak for those renting/buying super-teles, but I read mostly good things about those recent releases too.

[Pi]

Canon going to leapfrog the sigma in IQ... how much wishful thinking is this, how much "better" do you think Canon's will be?.... oh, right... the "colors" and "bokeh" will all be $1000 better like all the other L lenses compared to the competition. 

It would not take many more efforts for Canon to make a lens with better bokeh than the Sigma. Wait, they already have one, the 35L.

And will probably be sharper at F/1.4 than the siggy is at F/2.8 right?

Who cares? Sharpness is quite good already. There are other things needed an improvement.

[Erikerodri]

question to those using this lens. Would this make a good portrait lens? If I had the 24-70 lens, would this lens have any advantage for quality on portraits assuming I am using good lighting and not really needing the extra f-stop power because of the lighting? Sorry for all the questions, I am on the fence of buying either the 24-70 and the 35mm lens and I'm just trying to see the pros and cons of each

[verysimplejason]

question to those using this lens. Would this make a good portrait lens? If I had the 24-70 lens, would this lens have any advantage for quality on portraits assuming I am using good lighting and not really needing the extra f-stop power because of the lighting? Sorry for all the questions, I am on the fence of buying either the 24-70 and the 35mm lens and I'm just trying to see the pros and cons of each

I'm using 28mm on an aps-c and it's hardly a portrait lens.  Perhaps if you need a whole body shot, it's useable.  For apsc 50mm or longer is recommended for portaits.  85 and above for FF. 24-70 is useable but not so much.  A 70-200 on FF if you really prefer a zoom is generally much better for portraits than a 24-70.  But of course, it's just me. 

[CarlTN]

Without a doubt!  Especially if it was outdoors, in the rain.

Seriously, I wonder if anyone has taken anything other than a 1 series to the rainforest, places like the amazon, or Borneo...or even just central america.

Rainforest... Check. Central America... Check.

Which body was it, and how did you deal with the moisture and humidity?